A four-decade tidal wave of Mexican immigration to the United States has receded, causing a historic shift in migration patterns as more Mexicans appear to be leaving the United States for Mexico than the other way around, according to a report from the Pew Hispanic Center.

It looks to be the first reversal in the trend since the Depression, and experts say that a declining Mexican birthrate and other factors may make it permanent.

Letting in large numbers of low skilled workers just to cut wages for already poorly paid jobs such as gardening and roofing was always a bad idea. It becomes a worse idea every year as more low skilled jobs get automated out of existence. Gone are the days when many large industrial behemoths employed tens and hundreds of thousands of workers each to do simple tasks in factories. Computer controlled devices make continual in-roads into work formerly done by manual laborers.

What are we going to do with the descendants of these immigrants as demand for manual laborers continues to decline? They do very poorly in school. In an economy where mental work plays a growing role the smartest continue to become more valuable relative to rest.

We face a big problem with declining labor force participation, especially with black males. This problem has been made worse by letting in large numbers of illegal immigrants to compete at lower wage levels.

The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and changing economic conditions in Mexico.

We should have an immigration policy that lets in only the most highly skilled.

"We should have an immigration policy that lets in only the most highly skilled."

The ideal immigration policy would be one that:

- Lets in about 250,000 persons a year
- Gives preference to immigrants from Europe and Northeast Asia
- Eliminates or at least greatly reduces slots for immigrants based on family reunifcation or refugee status
- Screens out immigrants who are likely to become users of welfare or are otherwise unable to support themselves
- Sets a maximum age for eligbility, let's say, 40.
- Denies immigrant visas to people who are chronically ill, disabled, or are mentally retarded

If this all looks somewhat familiar, it should, because basically this was our policy from 1925 to 1965. Good luck turning the clock back though.

They're fleeing the disaster they've made of California and many of them are ending up in small towns in the Midwest. Here in Iowa, my 86 year old mother was followed by Mexicans to my dead-end-road remote place of residence outside of a town of 5000 and when they discovered she was greeted by a man they turned tail and ran. The agribusinesses are immune to lawsuit for the damages they cause by this replacement of the demography that was once, counted as a separate country, the top in the world in scholastic aptitude and IQ (origin of the computer, Robert Noyce, etc), with obsequious slaves/predators.

It's satisfying to see major media basically abandoning the tripe about illegal immigration being an unstoppable force (ie "you can't deport 12 million people") and instead angling for the lugubrious (ie "they're scared to come and becoming too scared to stay!", with the implication being that if this makes you happy, you're a bad person).

I wouldn't believe a word the media or government says on anything that has to do with race. This sounds like a PR campaign for amnesty. We should have an immigration policy that maintains the culture.

The Obama administration has fudged the numbers on deportations (adding voluntary departures, which were not included before). I'd wait for confirmation of this claim from other sources before expressing even mild relief.

Mild relief is all this merits, because even net zero leaves us with 10+ million illegals plus the issue of fixing the erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment; that will immediately "create" millions more by re-definition of anchor babies from citizens to non-citizens.

Let EVERYONE in. regardless of iq or abilty. the more the merrier. meaning many of the great contributors to human advancement,like einstein or newton came from peastant backgrounds. who knows how many future da vincis we're denying entry by only letting boring Finns into our beloved United States (said tongue slighlty in cheek).
By the way,please visit the most significant website of ALL TIME: http://www.hedweb.com/

"I'd wait for confirmation of this claim from other sources before expressing even mild relief."
Well EP, there's a very wise saying that goes: "Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it" I guess well find out, won't we?
Faruq's idea makes sense, even if you think having a different view to yours implies low or no IQ. I wonder why there's so much need in some to brag about IQ as if they belonged to a different species. Are you making up for a mental lack or need from childhood, perhaps...? Somebody called you an idiot too many times, that you need to compensate and reassure yourself...? Or is it just lack of World History lessons?

"We should have an immigration policy that maintains the culture."
Sounds very Germany back in the 1930's. Sounds like yet another nationalist who also didn't take any World History at school or didn't know what to do with the information. It's amazing how few new ideas come from those "high IQ" hard-core nationalists. Immigrants are not your enemies just because they are immigrants. It's about what kind of immigrant we are talking about. It is the so-called "high skilled" or white-collar immigrants that are taking away your jobs, not those picking strawberries, pulling chicken guts or washing dishes.

The low IQ (both immigrant and indigenous) are trashing neighborhoods and schools, destroying parks, poaching wildlife and sucking down huge amounts in social spending. The immigrants are creating new underclasses. This is great for "divide and rule" tactics of the elite, but very bad for me.

I'd like to see the USA reverse course and go the way of Japan. Instead of importing cheap labor, Japan is mechanizing. I'd rather see more jobs for engineers and mechanics than dishwashers and vegetable-pickers. The stoop-labor economy can't support the middle-class society that made the USA great; killing it means feudalism in all but name.

Engineer poet: you need to take a chill-pill. not just with this post about hispanics,but more so with your nagging about my posting links to my favourite website: www.hedweb.com
maybe buy a massage cusgion on ebay and losen up the tension in your muscles which is causing you to be so high-strung.
But as an aside, it would be an interesting experiement if the US government allowed the creation of a ghetto or even a completely new city (Brainopolis anyone?), which only allowed high iq people to live in it. maybe a iq score of 135 would be a arbitary cut-off point. I wonder if such a intellectual ghetto would be any more producitive than a normal zone of human habatation.

I think Engineer poet is sex starved. He doesn't know that the IQ test doesn't measure emotional intelligence, gut instinct, sense of humor, intrapersonal intelligence and others. So much for your overrated IQ pride. Same goes for Randall. I've never taken one of those tests, but even if I got the genius grade, I would know that there have been low IQers geniuses, who have actually done something great with watever intelligence they got.

Look EP, there are lots of idiots who hold a doctorate nowadays. Many of them even teach at Harvard.

I still don't know -perhaps due to my low IQ- why they feel so threatened by people doing the kind of jobs they would never do.

Why the hell would they care so much about what person does those jobs they'll never want do?

Is this the kind of oversimplification a high IQer comes up with?? Do you really think that is so feasible?

Right on Engineer Poet; you nailed it! Congratulations on that high IQ of yours that leads you to believe the USA is so similar to Japan: landmass, ethnic homogeneity, population distribution, history, natural resources, traditions, etc.

You keep wishing for that reverse course and going the way of Japan.... And please, by all means, keep up that wonderful IQ of yours EP.

We're not going back to pre-1965 immigration policy. Current Political Correctness would never allow a policy that prioritized European immigrants. However I would like to see one that prioritized people with at least a basic working knowledge of English and had post graduate STEM degrees. That would make a real difference generations down the road.

>"many of the great contributors to human advancement,like einstein or newton came from peastant backgrounds"

It would be nice if you could learn to write properly.

It would be even better if you could learn to think properly. "Great contributors to human advancement" do not need to live in the US in order to contribute to human advancement. Einstein and Newton (neither of whom came from peasant backgrounds. by the way) did not need to live in the US in order to accomplish the things for which they are famous. Scientific knowledge is the most easily spread of all human accomplishments.

Newtons parents were farmers. But i was wrong about Einstein admitedly.
Great to be mentioned alongside E O wilson. I'm finally famous.
Like i said you ppl need to chill. yes it's disturbing to see los angeles with its litter strewn streets,and potholes (the roads here remind me of india!). but if you dont like SoCal,just move to phoenix or denver. america is a large country. sorry to be so flippant over such a serios topic,but sometimes you have to interject light-heartedness...
adios amigos!

"It only decreases the availability of public resources, and increases the over-supply for jobs that are already low-paid."

No Mthson. It is OVERPOPULATION that decreases the availability of public resources, not immigration. ¿What's wrong with low-paid jobs that you are too lazy or soft to take? At least those jobs provide cheap produce and poultry for you.

"Scientific knowledge is the most easily spread of all human accomplishments."

Maybe in your planet, Solaris. Here, the most easily spread accomplishments are religion and warfare. By the way, even if Newton or Einstein did not need to live in the US, wouldn't you like to have them? No, probably not.

The world is getting smaller. Immigration is unavoidable, interactions are unavoidable, communications are unavoidable and the days of countries with borders are comming to an end soon. If rich countries have squeezed third-world countries resources dry, you can bet they will continue to move north. So I salute Faruq and Just Chilling for having a little more vision.

¿Don't you get tired of all that cocky talk? ¿Are you one of those soon-to-graduate idiots our universities are filled with? ¿Can't you tell how narcissistic you sound?

Perhaps you are not an idiot after all. Please Solaris, tell us what "thinking properly" is; instead of insulting. Cause I mean, its easy to rebuke and insult those who don't agree with you. Any middle schooler can do that. On the other hand, providing full ideas that withstand testing or that can somehow be measured is a little harder.

¿Can you come up with any of those ideas? I'm sure you can. Cause saying that "Scientific knowledge is the most easily spread of all human accomplishments", sounds almost childish, if you consider how little scientific knowledge people tend absorb.

A few questions to test your ideas. To avoid answering them, of course, is not to escape being tested.

1. "the days of countries with borders are comming to an end soon."

Will Switzerland cease to be a country with borders soon, as you claim it will? (Note that if Switzerland won't do so soon, the days of countries with borders will not end soon. The most that will be true is that some countries will soon cease to become countries with borders, but that Switzerland, at least, will not do so soon.)

"Soon" is ambiguous, but a generous definition of "soon" is "within a generation", i.e. 25-30 years at most. Please test your claim against presently observable and historical facts about Switzerland and the Swiss.

2. "It is OVERPOPULATION that decreases the availability of public resources, not immigration."

The increase of population in the US, other than from immigration, is negligible. Given that fact, can you name an effect that is clearly caused by increasing population in the US and nothing else, but is clearly not caused by the presence of more immigrants? If you can't, what material fact sustains your distinction above?

3. "What's wrong with low-paid jobs..."

The segment of the population in low-paid jobs consume, on average and over time, more of public goods (such as public health care and public education) than they pay for with taxes. All else held constant, an increased proportion of the population in low-paid jobs will reduce the availability on average of a given level of public goods for a given level of taxation. What is "wrong" may be subjective, but I say that, to me, a per capita decrease in available public goods for a given level of taxation is a "wrong". You may disagree that it is. But, given that that is a "wrong" to me, how will this "wrong-to-me" be avoided, all else held constant?

Increasing numbers of immigrants seeking low-paid jobs will, all else held constant, make those jobs even lower paid. I say that that is a "wrong" in itself, independent of whether it could or could not affect me directly; because, at the very least, I do not want to see low-paid workers paid even lower. You may not share that feeling of not wanting it; the validity of that feeling is not the point in question. But, given that that is a "wrong" to me, how will this "wrong-to-me" be avoided, given increasing numbers of immigrants seeking low-paid jobs, all else held constant?

Note that I am setting aside other, compensating factors, as is my right. You mention cheap produce and the like. (Note that this is a false example, as labor costs are a small fraction of the cost of produce, so that farmworkers could be paid at their former, historically higher rates with negligible injury to buyers of produce like me. Far more than that, I grew up in California during the days of boycotted grapes, and suffered not at all from not having grapes -- in economic terms, we imposed an infinite cost on ourselves with no harm to ourselves.) No, I am saying that (to me) the effects mentioned are "wrongs" in themselves, and these "wrongs" (to me, as I measure them) are not mitigated by any other factors.

(I don't anticipate needing to say this, but if you were simply to state that these aren't "wrongs" to you, or that I am wrong in thinking they are "wrongs", rather than explain how these "wrongs-to-me" won't in fact happen, you would fall short of your prescription of "providing full ideas that withstand testing or that can somehow be measured".)

4. "...that you are too lazy or soft to take?"

"Please Solaris, tell us what "thinking properly" is; instead of insulting. Cause I mean, its easy to rebuke and insult those who don't agree with you."

How do you reconcile your invitation of solaris not to rebuke and insult, with your own making of rebukes and insults to Mthson?wrong

"Brainopolis" pretty much exists: Palo Alto, CA. Note that it is a highly diverse town--nothing like '30s Nazi Germany, that's for sure.

Toleration of mass low-IQ immigration (at least before there's a framework to raise all their IQs) is either idiotic, insane or traitorous. In cases where the first two reasons can be ruled out (granted, this is difficult, there are a lot of honest "clever sillies" around), I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty applied one of these days. I don't expect to see justice in my lifetime, though, so I've moved out of the US.

>"If rich countries have squeezed third-world countries resources dry, you can bet they will continue to move north."

Lefties are are the most stupid people on the face of the Earth, and probably the most stupid creatures in existence anywhere in the universe. I could explain economics and "resources" to you, but you would not comprehend what was said.

In Mexico the following two improvements are significant: the much lower birth rate and many new local job opportunities. For these reasons there is a strong incentive for many Mexican Americans to go back to Mexico, and they are happy there.

On the downside, many successful and affluent immigrants in the US also started to return back to their countries. Thus the US needs to find a way to attract and keep the most talented immigrants.

"the US needs to find a way to attract and keep the most talented immigrants."

No it doesn't. The US was doing much better before the immigration liberalizations. All the noise about immigrants starting businesses etc. is nothing more than evidence that new immigrant cultures are more competitive at gaining access to rent-seeking niches that includes financing, academic positions and government licenses.

Immigration has been an absolute disaster.

Nothing like the Wright Brothers or transistor has happened since 1965.

Farmers are not peasants? I thought they were pretty close, as in lower down the social chain. Is there any need to used words like 'cretin' here? but randall will let you off,coz you're a fellow white. ( take a note of this, whenever a white personal useses a racist remark, such as paki, he lets the matter go, but if a non-white repondes in kind then the post is instantly deleted. group/kin co-operation in action.

I admire your work! You've hooked solaris firmly. You gave him every chance, too: by posting a false statement ("but more so with your nagging about...") you signaled up front that you wouldn't be concerned with truth, and you've been forthright about your unseriousness ("sorry to be so flippant over such a serios topic..."). Yet he bit, and you're playing him masterfully. Even in your line of work, there are degrees: I find forthrightness more admirable than pretense. Now you're aiming for bigger fish. Will you catch them? Time will tell.

I have not made any racist remarks. Up until now I've been under the impression that you were a WHITE cretin and moron. The possibility that you are a BROWN cretin and moron does not alter my opinion of you in the slightest. Whatever your skin color, you are a stupid person. I consider that to be a bigger problem than your bigotry.

I, on the other hand, could explain to you in some detail the distinction between Isaac Newton Sr and a peasant (which is similar to the distinction between Thomas Jefferson and a slave) if was I was so inclined.

Last week Control Data announced the 6600 system. I understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and 4 are programmers. Contrasting this modest effort with our vast development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the world's most powerful computer.

Get the fuck out of my country.
--Thomas Watson, Jr., IBM CEO, August 28, 1963

My parents retired partially on the capital gains of the stock they purchased -- at my advice -- helping to build the Cray-1 in that same backwoods farm.

I'm skeptical of claims that old-time inventions like that of the Wright Brothers are categorically more impressive, complex, or more benefiting to humankind than recent developments like the mass internet and smartphones.

All this talk about Jews (and now other immigrants) taking over things reminds me of Speilberg's projection in Indiana Jones where the bad evil German says to "Indy":

"Again we see there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away."

The difference being in "create" rather than "possess".

Here's the reality:

Jews deny others the right to conduct controlled experiments that exclude them. In so doing, they render all claims to having "contributed" subject to the confounding variables -- such as their presence.

There is only one kind of Jew that is human in my book, and that is the Jew who says to others -- even blond haired blue eyed "wet dreams of Hitler", "I support equitable territorial allocation to all who want to conduct controlled experiments in human ecology by mutual consent -- even those who are testing the hypothesis that Jews are the problem, not the solution."

The same goes for all immigrant groups -- especially those who claim that there is something wrong with US citizens who object to the presence of people admitted under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That act was passed at the behest of Jewish organizations to so confound the "American Experiment" that no one would be able to figure out what was happening.

Nobody would argue that China, Japan, or Germany are Jewish-dominated countries. The experiment had an adequate (if imperfect; would have been nice to skip lunacy like the Cultural Revolution) control. A lot of people can figure out what is happening.

The question is what to do about it. Back in the 1910s-30s, revolutionaries succeeded by building a "state within a state", but the military calculus of that age was quite different (and some of the aforementioned revolutionaries went on to commit unprecedented atrocities). I suspect that a new kind of revolution needs to be invented.

DB, the controls are _not_ adequate to dispense with (usually pedantic) objections that any inferences drawn from such ecological correlations minimize the ecological fallacy. Of course, this sort of argumentation ignores the fact that the burden of proof has been subtly shifted to those who are merely attempting to assert the most fundamental human right of all: Freedom of association. No one should have to prove anything to anyone in order to invest their own lives in strongly held working hypotheses of causation in human ecology in mutual consent with others.

Strong inference in the social sciences does demand deliberate exclusionary criteria so that control groups do exclude -- or at least minimize -- the ecological fallacy. Anyone who is at all curious about things like political economy, "diversity", etc. should be most happy to see people freed to deliberately associate by mutual consent under formal criteria that they declare, and thereby exclude the residual critique that the ecological fallacy prevents strong inference.

"Scientific knowledge is the most easily spread of all human accomplishments."

We could've chosen not to destroy the Library of Alexandria, but did.
We could've chosen not to destroy and forget the works of Eratosthenes who had accurately calculaded the circumference of the Earth, before Christ had been born. This implies that people knew the Earth was round, but most decided not to know it.
Hipatia knew that the Earth not only moved around the Sun, but she was intelligent enough to conclude that it did so in an eliptic way. Instead of acquiring that scientific knowledge humans decided to wait 1000 until Kepler rediscovered that.
The Catholic church with its tens of millions -perhaps hundreds of millions- of followers, accepted that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, until 1992! With a 300-year delay! (Meanwhile Galileo was burning due to the excomunication...)
I think we could've saved over 1000 years of Dark Ages. Why didn't we? Let me guess... I know, I know! Because "Scientific knowledge is the most easily spread of all human accomplishments" You really like to cruise for loads of shit, don't you solaris?

"Lefties are are the most stupid people on the face of the Earth, and probably the most stupid creatures in existence anywhere in the universe. I could explain economics and "resources" to you, but you would not comprehend what was said."

Ha, ha, ha, ha. What a douche bag. But then again many adults in the USA have that childish mentality they can't free themselves from. You are great solaris. I wonder how many "righties" are now thinking "Pease, don't help us, idiot!!"

Do you also lisp as you speak, solaris? Like Daffy Duck? I particularly loved your emphatic "...anywhere in the universe" Or is it "univerth"? Ha, ha, ha I think I'll just pour me another drink and continue enjoying your entertaining remarks. Sorry, can't stop laughing...

"You do realize that a lot of the loss of knowledge, including the library at Alexandria and much of the isolation which created the Dark Ages, was the work of Islam and Islam alone?"

You mean I've been wrong all these years? Oh crap! I begin to feel so sad now that I see how right you got your history and how the rest of us is always wrong. We all must revise the historical chapter in which Cyril of Alexandria's christian followers flayed Hipatia's skin alive and burnt her pieces. Now, I'm talking about the Cyril who was later made a saint...

Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria#Murder_of_Hypatia. However if you don't read much, you can always watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos series (Chapter 13) or watch the film Agora, which is pretty accurate.

Perhaps the Inquisition was an Islam invention after all. I'm all ears and waiting for you to illustrate me on that. Maybe the Spanish Inquisition was carried out by the Islam and I've been wrong all along...

I wish to make very clear that I reject Islam as much as I reject Christianity, because both seem to me the two most violent and dogmatic religions nowadays and in the past. Both mobs could learn a little from Induism.

And please Engineer-Poet, don't pretend to be the only one with the latest revelation of "historical facts" different from the ones people have learnt in the rest of the world.

>"We could've chosen not to destroy the Library of Alexandria, but did. We could've chosen not to destroy and forget the works of Eratosthenes etc etc"

None of which made the slightest bit of difference in the long run. Hence my argument that scientific knowledge is impossible to contain. Which, to get back to the initial point, was why we don't need to being Newton or Einstein to America in order to understand gravity or relativity, and why (in spite of Andy Grove supposedly founding Intel) most computer chips are made outside the US these days.

>"watch the film Agora, which is pretty accurate."

That's just embarrassing. Next you'll be citing "Gangs Of New York" in the cause of open borders. If you want to be taken seriously don't cite popular entertainment as authoritative historical source material.

There also was no "1000 years of Dark Ages", another mistaken concept you doubtless acquired from watching the boob tube. Hey, did you see "Black Death" starring Sean Bean? That's totally true, man! It happened just like that!

I suppose the sheer imbecility of your thinking is why you change your screen name more frequently than your underwear. A mind as big and free as yours just cannot be contained by one handle.

Who is "we", you scientifically illiterate oaf? There is no "we"
"We" means YOU and I, idiot. First person plural, that should've been taught you in elementary school.

"There also was no "1000 years of Dark Ages", another mistaken concept you doubtless acquired from watching the boob tube. Hey, did you see "Black Death" starring Sean Bean? That's totally true, man! It happened just like that!"
Did you bite your tongue there on who's "watching the boob tube"?? Ha, ha, ha, what a complete idiot you are. So now the middle schooler who believes somebody is stupid because supposedly that somebody got information from the "boob tube" is -in the same sentence- recommending to watch something in the boob tube! It's hard to believe that these "Solaris" kind of retards really exist. Therefore, Solaris gets his info where? "Black Death" with Sean Bean! This kind of idiocy is proverbial.

"I suppose the sheer imbecility of your thinking is why you change your screen name more frequently than your underwear" A mind as big and free as yours just cannot be contained by one handle"

Oh, Ok, I'm Sorry Solaris. I didn't mean to get you all hysterical just like women get. Anyway, perhaps you wish to give us your real name, you idiot. So what if I change my screen name because I simply feel like it? Perhaps your dogmatic mind has also inspired you to know how many and what those screen names are, right? While you continue drooling, let me ask if you really haven't noticed that you YOURSELF are using a screen name which is not your own name? And haven't you noticed that using one screen name different from your real name is exactly the same as using a thousand? Simply because nobody knows who "solaris" or "engineer poet" or just chilling or faruq are. Get it? Ha, ha, ha, ha. Haven't you noticed that you have now become the ass who critizices somebody long ears... Unless of course you feel you're full IDing yourself fully with that cute "solaris". Only idiots like you get so distracted by things like screen names You'll get smarter when you pay attention to the contents of words and sentences, rather than screen names.

The first link I posted above all your squealing is not a video. Get it?

"Hence my argument that scientific knowledge is impossible to contain"

No, solaris. You argued that "Scientific knowledge is the most easily spread of all human accomplishments." Which is a completely different thing, regardless of how you try to make your mistake unnoticed by readers. Scientific knowledge has been hindered and completely quenched many times in history. Many things had to be rediscovered centuries later and many others were simply lost. Therefore, scientific knowledge is NOT the most easily spread of all human accomplishments, as you have argued. Your little brain power is enough proof.

You look for atomic mistakes under a dogmatic-righteoussness microscope on posts that should be read practically like the one about "peasants" and then expect us to be practical, lenient and indulgent when we pay attention to your blatant mistakes and how you try to disguise them. To liers like you I say, go do yourself; as most middle schoolers have to. Al Pacino would tell you to "take the fucken wax out of your ears..."

And, by "we" I mean readers here. Just so you know, before you start getting smart here, you lier.

"I'd wait for confirmation of this claim from other sources before expressing even mild relief."

I wouldn't count on this trend lasting too much considering the sad conditions of our southern neighbor. It's not like immigrants are going to ask any permission to cross the border or try to make a living.

>"So now the middle schooler who believes somebody is stupid because supposedly that somebody got information from the "boob tube" is -in the same sentence- recommending to watch something in the boob tube!"

Obviously, sarcasm is wasted on the stupid. I did not "recommend" that you get information from watching movies. I mocked you for doing so.

>"So what if I change my screen name because I simply feel like it?"

So what if you try to make it appear as if masses of people agree with you? So what if "we" to you means "me and my legion of sock-puppets"?

I think both solaris and No I don't are quite a pair of morons for not knowing how difficult it is to try to use sarcasms here. Since points of view can be so different and even opposed, sarcasm could many times be interpreted as read, as what somebody really means, and rightly so. A forum is for expressing your oppinion. Therefore, quit using this forum as your personal mental-jerking off or insults space and just say your say.

No I don't you are just a relentless mother fucker you just won't let go, like a fucken hound and solaris is the kind of know-it-all prick nerd who thinks his cute little ideas are so fucken deep.

Immigrants are not the enemy.
The only real enemy around is the parasite leasure class: politicians, big owners and religious ministers.

When American sociologist Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) published The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), of which one historian noted that the author "discussed the habits and thoughts of the rich as if they made up a primitive tribe he had discovered," he emphasized "conspicuous consumption," the vulgar display of wealth especially characteristic of the parvenu nouveaux riches and the American Gilded Age. Veblen's classic is not easy reading, but he like Marx and Engels viewed the leisure class as purely parasitic.

The Theory appeared at a time when Americans were much more clear-headed about social class than they are today. Aided by the taboo on the discussion of class, and by the ceaseless propaganda broadcast by the corporate-censored media, which forbids plain English like "upper class," "idle rich," "class privilege," "profiteering," "class conflict," "working class," "proletariat," "elite," "the poor," and "exploitation" in favor of euphemisms like "underprivileged," "upper-end," "upper-strata," "upper-crust," "high-end," "exclusive," "lower socioeconomic strata" and so forth, and by the notorious unintellectual character of the American people-a nation of television viewers rather than readers-the public thus has become bewildered about such simple facts as that they live in a class society, that there is an American leisure class, that class warfare is an everyday, ubiquitous phenomenon, and that in a society where everyone is supposed to be rich (an ideology that gave rise to the incessant American smile-spontaneous, forced, duplicitous or otherwise), but most people are poor, the impecunious masses in the working class suffer from an extraordinary stigma of utter lack of success. As Publius Syrus wrote, desunt inopiae multa, avaritiae omnia.

The American idle rich inherit a lightly-taxed, multi-million dollar trust fund fortune, never work a day in their life, and live off the labor of others in sudore vultus alieni. They do absolutely nothing to earn their keep, their daily bread, their room and board, and their precious stock and bond and real estate and capital goods mammon. Needless to say, unlike Americans of the middle and lower classes-whose labor they exploit-the idle rich do not mow the lawn, vacuum the carpet, do the dishes, cook, mop or sweep the floor, wash windows, take out the trash, make home repairs to plumbing or electrical works or appliances, paint the walls, rake leaves, trim shrubs, bushes or trees, do laundry, sew, knit, bake, tend to and take care of children, wash or repair automobiles, shop for groceries, nurse sick relatives, shovel snow, clear their house gutters of leaves, dust, unclog toilets, scrub bathroom floors and tile. The Spaniards have an unkind proverb, para trabajar hacen falta los burros-as if man, made for the contemplation of heaven and all noble objects, should be nothing but Frederick W. Taylor's beast of burden. So far from having a work ethic, the idle rich live by an elite ethic that contemns ordinary labor and those in lower classes who are forced to perform it, and this same class privilege ethic forbids them to do any common work.

In short, the leisure class lives in luxury, consuming much but contributing zero to humanity. But not actually idle, the idle rich play polo, golf, tennis, attend a busy round of cotillions, balls and debutante and society parties, jet around the world, swim and hang out at expensive country clubs that make it a point to drive off and exclude from membership in their fashionable retreats commoners and riffraff, own multiple vacation homes, a private jet and a yacht, and employ a staff of servants-maids, chefs, cooks, gardeners, nannies, nurses, wet nurses, mechanics, tutors, housekeepers, chauffeurs, butlers, social secretaries and what have you-to do their work for them. Class privilege also includes exemption from risking life and limb in war. Usually male elites, if they serve in war at all, are commissioned as officers, with attendant privileges in the midst of wartime scarcity and rationing, and are stationed well-behind the front lines out of danger. Consider the outrageous laws passed during the American Civil War, which allowed the rich man, by paying $300 to the government, to escape military service, part of the first draft law in the North in 1863, thus leaving poor men to risk everything in the astonishing carnage of the War Between the States (1861-65).

From a certain very narrow perspective, it is true that the American working class is not class conscious in the manner that Marx classically anticipated, and like so many other proletariats around the world their main problem is a lack of the organization and class unity needed to overthrow the ruling class and establish a cooperative society in which the necessities of life are produced for the benefit of humanity, not the profit of the ruling class.

On the other hand, American workers are doubly class conscious in their own societal norms, beliefs and values, in their own singular culture, the ideology of which is that any man, even those lowly-born, can attain riches, and which worships the almighty dollar to an unprecedented extent. But fortunate are they who conjure with Socrates, who remarked "he who has the smallest wants approaches the gods most nearly." The money-hungry American televangelist preaches the gospel of wealth to his Laodicean flock, hallucinating that "God" talks to him, with not a soul to enlighten him of his lucrative blasphemy, as the TV screen repeatedly flashes the address where to send your check to for salvation, thereby reassuring home viewers of their born-again atheism just before flipping the channel.

The lower class-whose members resent the term and prefer "working class"-is acutely aware of its own failure (whatever the rest of the world may think of the American inability to discipline their own children, the collapse of formal education and the consequent spread of imbecility, and moral chaos and social disintegration). In American English the word class has acquired the secondary meanings of intelligence, success, wit, comprehension, insight, a "winning attitude" or "winning image," and according to a popular dictionary, "great style or quality," and likewise for the word's popular adjectival form, classy ("a classy sports car").

The American idle rich and their mythical nonexistence is one among several troubling paradoxes of American society. Most Americans agree with the phrase "everyone has to work," but not everyone works, especially those living in luxury.